Worst president in history?

[Dustin_B]

I recieved the following from a young republicans email list that I subscribe to:

 

 

FW: Worst president in history?

 

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor)

 

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

 

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

 

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

 

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

 

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

 

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

 

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

 

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

 

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

 

Worst president in history? Come on!

 

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

 

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

 

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

 

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

 

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

[Distel32]

most of their points are pretty dumnb. but who cares.

 

I work for their counter-organization

[chucK]

You guys continually seem to want to equate the war on terror with the invasion of Iraq.

 

"Liberals" as well as more and more rank and file Americans recognize these as two distinct agendas, with the former getting less attention than it deserves due to preoccupation with the latter.

[Dru]

Which president was the first to eat a bratwurst?

[chucK]

Something tells me that American soldiers will be dying in Iraq for a longer time than Bush will be occupying the White House.

[cracked]

most of their points are pretty dumnb. but who cares.

 

I work for their counter-organization

[Distel32]

most of their points are pretty dumnb. but who cares.

 

I work for their counter-organization

 

yeah thats right, two bong rips and one final later and one more in 40mins, suck it beyotch!

[MervGriffin]

"...yeah thats right, two bong rips and one final later and one more in 40mins, suck it beyotch!'

 

Yup! Light that bowl, suck that joint and go bouldering!

What a country!

 

 

[Distel32]

[marylou]

Hey, leave Distel alone. He's a snart kid.

[cracked]

I'll bet he even supports LaRouche!

[murraysovereign]

Good God! Is LaRouche running again?!?

[Skeezix]

Did they let LaRouche out of prison?

 

And Bush "crippled al-Qaida?" Uhhh... that's not what I heard.

[Fairweather]

....Back to the thread title: I have given this some serious thought over the years and I believe that the worst and the best American president is one-in-the-same....

Edited June 8, 2004 by Fairweather

[Skeezix]

But a great photo!

[Dru]

[cj001f]

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

No the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor - the Japanese did. Then we declared war on the Japanese, and Hitler declared war on the US.

[johndavidjr]

Dru:

That's a hilarious photo. Where's it from?

[Dru]

you can follow the URL and find out.

[JoshK]

How was Lincoln the worst? By persuing reconstruction. I would tend to agree...this country would be better off without the south.

[Distel32]

....Back to the thread title: I have given this some serious thought over the years and I believe that the worst and the best American president is one-in-the-same....

 

man, that old dude knows whats up! I'm bringing neckbeards back from the 19th century

 

time machine

[willstrickland]

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

 

So tell me again what this has to do with Iraq?

 

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

 

Sure skippy, let's do that.

 

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

 

Funny how that works. Bush Sr. led us into Gulf WarI, Iraq never attacked us.

 

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.

 

Yes, and Bush41 never even finished Gulf War I. But Shrub started Gulf War II, and it's deja-vu all over again, Iraq never attacked us.

 

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries

That's funny, last I checked Afghanistan is run by warlords in the opium trade, and Iraq is an occupied nation.

 

, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot

Hmm, last I checked those were IAEA inspectors. And if inspectors work there as a alternative to bloodshed, then why not in Iraq?

 

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

 

Really? I seem to remember two separate prolonged sniper incidents, one in DC and one in Ohio.

 

Worst president in history? Come on!

Making a good run at it anyway.

 

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

 

Did Janet land on a aircraft carrier and proclaim "Mission Accomplished" 1/4 of the way through the affair?

 

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

 

Hmm, yet Hillary managed to find something.

 

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

 

Ahh yes, "take" Iraq. I suppose that occurs when armed resitance ceases? Still waiting.

 

Perhaps if they had actually recounted the votes in Florida and not engaged in shady practices to strike african americans from the voter roles in the first place, there would be no Bush43.

 

Look, I'm just playing devil's advocate here...but if you're going to refute the "worst in history" claim, a simpleton rant from a college republican probably isn't the best place to start. You've used the equivalent of a young Cal Thomas. Try some of the more intelligent policy wonks and writers. Kristol, Brooks, etc.

[cj001f]

How was Lincoln the worst? By persuing reconstruction. I would tend to agree...this country would be better off without the south.

I hate to break it to you Josh... Lincoln didn't pursue reconstruction. He was shot 5 days after the war ended. It was Johnson who pursued reconstruction. But hay, you can blame it on the Republicans

[JoshK]

I was simply asking and taking a shot at the south. I have no idea why fairweather called him the best and worst prez. He'll have to explain that.

[Fairweather]

How was Lincoln the worst? By persuing reconstruction. I would tend to agree...this country would be better off without the south.

 

Since you asked....

 

1860/61. Lincoln stumbled headlong into a civil war that his very election helped create. He raised an army to suppress the southern rebellion, and then pushed them into offense before they were prepared. McLellan was right to hold back. Lincoln relieved him of his command. Consider this: a Union Army, superior in both sheer numbers and weaponry, was largely slaughtered - by an almost 2:1 margin! - and by a fairly rag-tag southern fighting force, under brilliant southern generalship. Lincoln had his victory in the end, but at a horrible.. and avoidable cost.

 

1863. Lincoln had draft riots in New York put down with brute force. 1000 dead. (Mostly new Irish immigrants unwilling to fight as draftees for the union.)

 

Closed unfriendly newspapers and suspended Writ of Habeas Corpus.

 

1864. Unleashed General Sherman on the south. During his 'march to the sea' he vowed to "make Georgia Howl". Untold thousands of southern civilians died at the hands of union troops. Southern cities burned and looted.

 

The slaughter of American Indians by union troops continued unabated in the west, including the massacre of Arapaho and Cheyenne as they awaited surrender terms on Nov 29, 1864 at Sand Creek.

 

Only when public support for the war was waining did Lincoln issue his Emancipation Proclamation. Remember, four Union States had remained slave states prior to this!

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think The Confederacy was an abomination. And I think the credit Lincoln gets for holding the United States together is well deserved. But the price he paid was very, very high.